Talk:Worf
FA status Nomination (10 July - 21 July 2005, Failed) the "fac" plate was on, so I added it here. *'Oppose' - It looks like alot of his time on Enterprise is missing, there's only the Kahless note for all of Season 6! And Jadzia seems like she deserves more then a paragraph, maybe even a picture of their wedding. This page still needs work in my opinion. - AJHalliwell 06:36, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC) *'Strongly oppose'. It was far from the quality a featured article should be. Personal history, relationships, interest, all needs to be heavily expanded. Ottens 09:59, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC) *'Opposed' -- I'm curious as to who nominated this? Shouldn't the fact its unsigned and posted 'because a "fac" place was on the page' constitute a removal from the page rather than an unsigned nomination? Anyway, the article needs to be restructured and expanded. --Alan del Beccio 10:37, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC) I appologize, I was going to remove it, but I didn't want a "You can't just remove that!" problem. - AJHalliwell 20:35, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC) Nomination (14 June - 14 July 2006, Failed) For the character with the single most Trek appearances this article is incredibly detailed and covers every aspect I can think of. It's got extensive quotes and background info, touches on all major relationships and assignments. I can't believe it hasn't been nominated before. Logan 5 17:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC) *'Object'. Despite being our longest article, it still is not complete. It needs more information on Worf's relationship with Ezri. -- Jaz talk 03:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Nomination (29 Aug - 31 Aug 2006, Unknown) *'Support.' This article wasn't listed here, so I'm including it. It was previously nominated for feature status. It covers all the bases, and is abundantly illustrated. It's well deserving of FA listing. --Sheliakcorp talk 17:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC) :Actually, this had a nomination discussion Worf (07/13/06), and failed nomination. No one bothered to remove the template when it failed. I will do so, and then remove it from here, since it was never actually re-nominated. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 01:49, March 31, 2012 (UTC)}} Nomination (31 July - 25 August 2011, Failed) There are three reason this should be a FA: 1) This is one of the most comprehensive articles on MA and covers all the necessary criteria. 2) This article covers more Star Trek history in detail than any other article we have. 3) It's fraking Worf, what more do you want?! - 21:15, July 31, 2011 (UTC) *'Support'. Clearly deserves FA status.--31dot 01:53, August 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose'. There are a few things that need to be sorted out before I can support this as a Featured Article. :1) While most of the background information is now cited, there are two comments that I haven't been able to find a reference for. The translation thing isn't in the The Klingon Dictionary (2nd ed.), though I suppose it could be in another of Okrand's works. As for the /Worf's absence/First Contact note, I'm not sure that quite jives with what's in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion, though I guess it's possible. :2) I think the page should have a proper appearances list, per previous discussions on Talk: Wesley Crusher and Talk: Main character non-appearances. This could be done in a space-saving format, of course. (TNG except for... etc.)–Cleanse ( talk | ) 06:25, August 1, 2011 (UTC) I removed the note about the vacation, since there is no information on the film or episode pages, suggesting to me it's a rumor at best. As for the translation, that could just be removed as well if no cite is found, since it's hardly the most important piece of information on the page. An appearances, or non-appearances, section could be added, but there is no reason to list the first three seasons of DS9 as non-appearances like it is on that page, since that's, A) silly, and B) not relevant since he wasn't a cast member. If some clarifying note is needed, it can be added, but presenting the information in that manner is confusing the point of the list, or suggesting that Dorn was cast but just didn't feel like working. - 07:37, August 1, 2011 (UTC) Never mind about the translation note, I've removed it for the reasons I mention here. That just leaves the appearances section. - 08:08, August 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Suppport' now that those issues have been resolved. I expanded and organised the background information section as well.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 10:49, August 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose': seems to require a lot of work, with many instances of "would" used in the wrong context (I remember reading about this in our policies and guildelines, though I can't quite remember where – mainly because the policies and guidelines are so jumbled!), random sentences that could do with more context, and quite a few grammatical errors, etc. (at least as far as I've read, though I've tried to sort these out). I suggest a peer review, then probably renomination. --Defiant 14:57, August 1, 2011 (UTC) :There's also a few sentences that literally don't make sense, so I'm unable to make head nor tail of them, which I find irritating, because I would like to enjoy this article and not come up against such confusing statements. Also, I'm confused about whether we're still endeavoring to avoid duplicated links on MA or not. --Defiant 15:41, August 1, 2011 (UTC) ::MA:POV#Tense for the "would do" v "did" stuff. Links should not be duplicated, except in the case of really long articles. -- sulfur 15:50, August 1, 2011 (UTC) :That's the impression I had, though I wasn't aware of the exception. Are we excusing this article from that guideline, then? --Defiant 16:00, August 1, 2011 (UTC) :::Just as an aside, I think we should generally relax that "one-link" policy somewhat. The purpose of that originally was to increase readability by not having each word be a link. If that policy starts do decrease the quality of navigation (because readers have to search hard for the single link to some article), it has gone too far. Perhaps "once per section" would be a better guideline. -- Cid Highwind 16:54, August 1, 2011 (UTC) :I've often thought it would be, though I know some bots have (or at least had) the faculty of specifically searching for cases of duplicated links, so I also suspected that there might be some reason for their exclusion, other than just user readability. --Defiant 17:30, August 1, 2011 (UTC) Did a pass at rewording uses of the word "would", though someone else might want to take a crack at it as well. I don't see a need for a peer review over these minor pov adjustments, as they are hardly significant revisions to the article, and I doubt that two weeks are required to fix them, or would even lead to them being fixed. That said, I would request that some of the confusing sentences be pointed out, since this is a rather long article, and I seem to have missed them before. - 10:52, August 2, 2011 (UTC) *'Support'. Clearly deserves FA status if only for the info contained, True, maybe the "would" grammar needs to be addressed, but I've been as a non-Anglo Saxon corrected in abundance, does not subtract from the fact of the value of the article, further corrections are to be considered minor --Sennim 00:49, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :I agree that they're minor... each of them. But there's many. And like some folks say in the UK, pennies make pounds (I guess the US equivalent would be "cents make dollars"?), but I digress. I'll try to identify the sentences I'm having a hard time understanding. In the meantime, I certainly appreciate the work that's gone into this; it's a very impressive article, just quite a few nitpicks that could do with being ironed out. --Defiant 01:41, August 6, 2011 (UTC) ::Then were are in agreement, one kick ass article, only in need of iring out by, grammatically, true and bred Anglo-Saxons (the community of which I'm unfortunately not part of...)--Sennim 02:32, August 6, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' I'm in agreement with the above supporting votes. This is a very extensive and comprehensive article that is deserving of FA status. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:13, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :Nitpicks: here goes. Firstly, there's a section that reads "K'Ehleyr, an iconoclastic ambassador and Worf's former lover, ... introduced their child, Alexander (see Family: K'Ehleyr and Alexander)." It doesn't say who or what K'Ehleyr introduced Alexander to, or what she introduced him into, but I think it'd be grammatically less awkward if it did – something along the lines of "K'Ehleyr introduced Alexander to Worf" or "K'Ehleyr introduced Alexander into the Enterprise crew," etc. A section I keep getting stuck on is where it says, "Worf served on Kurn's ship during the civil war, and fought at the Battle of Mempa, although he soon found himself dissatisfied at the impulsive manner of Klingon society when off-duty, Kurn's associating with officers who served the Duras family while they were in bars at the same time, despite the hostilities currently occurring between them." Not only is that sentence quite a rambling one but I also can't make head nor tail of it, grammatically. I also have problems with the sentence, "On the surface, Worf found L'Kor, now an old man. L'Kor informed Worf that his father died at Khitomer, and that a number of prisoners were taken to this camp." The surface of what, Carraya IV or some other planet in the Carraya region? And is that meant to be "a number of prisoners had been taken to this camp", just as it should be "his father had died at Khitomer"? The sentence, "Worf revealed technical knowledge of a temporal anomaly," seems too short and I'd like some clarification as to whether this was during the mission to Theta 116 VII or not. Another sentence I find confusing reads, "In 2370, Worf found himself along with the rest of the ''Enterprise crew following a mission to aid a stranded Romulan Warbird." I'm not entirely familiar with the term "to find oneself" and I find its usage here perplexing; does the word "following" mean subsequent to or basically just "on a mission that they were following". Although I certainly might be wrong, I have a hunch that a sentence that could be developed into a proper paragraph is the line that reads, "''Worf helped Byleth understand the humanoid emotion of antagonism." Another nonsensical sentence is "The transmitter was tucked away in a cramped compartment, and Garak had to overcome his acute claustrophobia to complete it." Complete what?! The phrase "Worf, together with Romulans" (in the section) seems childish, because it's too oversimplified; which Romulans? --Defiant 20:38, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :::Comment. Specific criticisms should be discussed at the article's talk page; if you oppose the article because it needs too many changes, then comments here should be left at that(which you already did with your original oppose vote)--31dot 20:45, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :Sorry; I thought Archduk3 meant he'd like comments here when he stated, "I would request that some of the confusing sentences be pointed out, since this is a rather long article, and I seem to have missed them before." --Defiant 20:56, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :::Well, the above seemed like more than "some" to me, but that is only my opinion and need not be yours. :) We're just almost at the point I think where, if there is that many comments about changes, this discussion is more about that then whether or not this should be an FA.--31dot 22:13, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :I agree; "some" seems quite a subjective qualification. It is what I was aiming for, though, and I made sure that I didn't go past the about-halfway-down mark of the "Personality" section. "Too many corrections needed" is the reasoning for my objection to this FA nomination. I've been asked to explain further, which I've tried to do. I'm therefore starting to feel like this is beginning to get personal. I'd much rather it not, though, as I do love everyone's work here on MA; it's a really good community to be part of, generally. :) --Defiant 22:39, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :::I apologize; I have not intended anything personal towards you.--31dot 01:02, August 7, 2011 (UTC) :Okay; apology accepted, and I'll take you at your word – that you didn't mean it to seem personal. But (returning to topic) did you mean that you don't think my quibbles about the article are sufficient for it not to achieve FA status? --Defiant 06:37, August 7, 2011 (UTC) :::I was not making any judgments about the merits of your criticism; I was simply saying that I felt this wasn't the place to go into extensive details.--31dot 08:40, August 7, 2011 (UTC) :Alright. Thanks for that clarification. :) --Defiant 08:46, August 7, 2011 (UTC) I've adjusted the wording of the sentences in question to hopefully be more Defiant and English friendly. :) - 13:21, August 11, 2011 (UTC) :My oppose vote remains for this article; I certainly don't think it's one of our best-written articles. A big problem with it seems to be an over-reliance on informal language (phrases, etc.), which is not very encyclopedic (at least, IMO; it also makes the text more inaccessible to me, as I'm not used to such casual lingo). I'll admit that it does have potential, though I don't feel this has yet been attained. --Defiant 08:52, August 16, 2011 (UTC) Well, I happen to find a too formal writing style to be stifling to the flow of an article, as well as overly simplistic and sometimes insulting to the reader. To be clear, that was not meant as a jab or insult to Defiant, but rather commentary on a problem with the English language. Since a requirement for formal language is a personal preference not covered directly in the Manual of Style, that makes this an unresolvable problem unless Defiant makes the changes himself, since "well written" is clearly part of criteria, but the definition of "well written" is different for every user. A PR at this point would also be useless, for the reasons already given. - 17:41, August 16, 2011 (UTC) :I was simply pointing out one of several problems I find with the article, others being that I think the DS9 info could be made more relevant to Worf and the "family" section on Jeremy Aster could be better incorporated into the article, as it's such a small paragraph. I actually agree with you that formal language can sometimes be too formal, though I believe this article just isn't formal enough. In total, I don't think this is one of our best-written articles, as I've tried to explain. I did not expect that any of your response was personal, nor is mine; no offense is meant, I'm purely expressing my opinions exclusively about the article. --Defiant 18:03, August 16, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose' for now, as there are still some typos and the Quotes-sections should be arranged chronologically. --36ophiuchi 21:41, August 21, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose': I'd like to now change my vote to oppose as I have been convinced from recent comments that this article needs work to become an FA. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:47, August 21, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment': I will not go as far as opposing this pages FA, but it is a bit long. It also gets very confusing because of missing dates in places. Otherwise well writen and full of detail. --Starfleet Academy (live long and prosper) 07:56, August 22, 2011 (UTC) Archived. - 02:15, August 26, 2011 (UTC) Name Worf... ;...son of Mogh, of the Klingon House of Martok, of the Human family Rozhenko, mate to K'Ehleyr, father to Alexander Rozhenko, and husband to Jadzia Dax, Starfleet officer and soldier of the Empire, bane of the House of Duras and slayer of Gowron I vote that we keep this :-) --OuroborosCobra talk 02:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC) :Of all the times I left the IRC, I miss this :-P - Enzo Aquarius 02:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ::I vote that we delete this :-) --Defiant 03:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Spoil sport :-P --OuroborosCobra talk 03:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ::I do not spoil sport!! Not in general, anyway. Maybe tennis or baseball or something, but not all sport!! :) --Defiant 03:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ::Seriously, though, is there a reason for keeping this? --Defiant 03:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC) :::It was intended as a bit of a joke to be honest. Something to tease Renegade54 a bit. I fully anticipate it (and expect it) to be deleted. Keeping it would be a bit... silly really. :) -- Sulfur 03:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ::Although I can take the occasional joke, I've got a feeling that misuse of MA doesn't set a very good example for new or less regular users. Also, not only do I agree that the redirect should be deleted but I also think the long, rambling introductory passage for the Worf article should be sectioned into separate sentences, especially after having read on one of MA's Guidelines pages that long, rambling sentences should be avoided! --Defiant 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ::::I say we keep this and also make a redirect for Alexander Siddig using his full name, Siddig El Tahir El Fadil El Siddig Abderahman Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Karim El Mahdi. These will be extremely useful as many users come in and take the time to type these names in the search field, hoping to be taken directly to the page and not have to go through the one match on the search result page. Come on, people, we need to think efficiency and practicality here! --From Andoria with Love 03:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC) :::You should really know not to tease me like that... expect a blue link by morning! Hee hee! -- Sulfur 03:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ::I don't mind that so much, but the Worf redirect should be removed, IMO, as it's not only his name, but also relationships with people. --Defiant 03:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ::Perhaps simply Worf, son of Mogh would suffice? --Defiant 03:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ::::(imagines a vandal moving this page) Worf, son of Mogh, of the Klingon House of Martok, of the Human family Rozhenko, mate to K'Ehleyr, father to Alexander Rozhenko, and husband to Jadzia Dax, Starfleet officer and soldier of the Empire, bane of the House of Duras and slayer of Gowron on Wheels!!! --From Andoria with Love 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC) I was joking too. This redirect is going to be deleted, I am aware of this. It does not belong, it does not make sense to keep it. I was just having some fun with it while it was here. We should keep Siddig El Tahir El Fadil El Siddig Abderahman Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Karim El Mahdi of course, since that is his real name. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Name (J.G.) Just the other day, I bought season one of TNG. The box has a booklet inside, with small character biographies. I noticed Worf's on there, where it said J.G. Worf. I searched this page, but I could find nothing about it. Could this be his first name? supergeeky1 20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC) : Lieutenant junior grade --Alan del Beccio 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC) ::...with "J.G." being the abbreviation for "junior grade". ;) --From Andoria with Love 04:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Complete name (redux) Wouldn't be Worf's complete name Worf Rozhenko just like his son was named Alexander Rozhenko? :Worf was primarily followed the Klingon traditions, making his complete name "Worf, son of Mogh." Alexander took the name Rozhenko, most likely, to honor both of his parents, honoring his father's adoptive parents and his mother's Human ancestory. Hope this helps. ----Willie 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC) That sounds awful. There is no canon evidence that Alex took the name Rozhenko to honor his parents. ::And? --OuroborosCobra talk 06:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Well, then there is most likely Worf's full name be Worf Rozhenko. ::Why? It was clearly stated in canon that it was "Worf son of Mogh", not "Worf Rozhenko". A talk page comment by Willie about personal opinions as to why Alexander chose "Alexander Rozhenko" does not change that. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC) :::In that case then, while this is an older discussion, shouldn't the page (similar to other Klingon character pages) be named "Worf, son of Mogh"? --Terran Officer 14:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC) ::::Problem is... his name is both. Both do redirect here. And anyhow, everyone knows him as just "Worf". :) -- Sulfur 15:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC) ::::: So for Federation purposes, "Worf Moghson" perhaps? I know of no instance that he was referred to by that. --LauraCC (talk) 16:00, April 17, 2015 (UTC) Worf's full name should be in bold Worf's full name is "Worf, son of Mogh", so shouldn't the "son of Mogh" part also be in bold at the beginning of the article? --NetSpiker (talk) 13:16, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :Dunno. Is it his proper name or just how they refer to him ceremonially? Making Worf's name "Moghson" or "McMogh" in Fed standard? :D --LauraCC (talk) 15:45, January 27, 2017 (UTC) In novels and reference books, Worf, son of Mogh and other ___, son of ___ names are mentioned in narration, not just dialogue, so I'd say they are actual names. follow the same conventions. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:42, January 28, 2017 (UTC) ::RTFM. - 01:48, January 28, 2017 (UTC) I never said that the page should be renamed. I'm just saying the "son of Mogh" part should be in bold. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:52, January 28, 2017 (UTC) ::I would think was implicit with the title of the page being what it is. - 02:01, January 28, 2017 (UTC) If you disagree with what I'm saying, please explain why you disagree, so we can discuss it. Don't just post links that are vaguely related to the topic, but don't really have anything to do with it. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:11, January 28, 2017 (UTC) ::Highlighted text is the subject of the page, and in almost all cases, this is the page title. This should be obvious to anyone who reads the highlighting conventions. The page title here is just Worf, which is why only Worf is highlighted. Suggesting we highlight any more is a suggestion to change the title of the page, and the reasons for not doing that are in the sections above and in the naming conventions, which is why this belongs where I put it. It doesn't matter who see it either, because it's not changing unless the titles does, and in that case, it still belongs where I put it. Don't move it again, and don't change the highlighted text. - 14:30, January 28, 2017 (UTC) Here's a list of examples where the title of the page and the highlighted text are NOT the same: :Alfonse Pacelli - Alfonse D. Pacelli :Arlene Eckridge - Arlene C. Eckridge :Benjamin Sisko - Benjamin Lafayette Sisko :Beverly Crusher - Beverly Cheryl Crusher :Daniel Kwan - Daniel L. Kwan :Harry Kim - Harry S.L. Kim :James T. Kirk - James Tiberius Kirk :Julian Bashir - Julian Subatoi Bashir :Kasidy Yates-Sisko - Kasidy Danielle Yates-Sisko :Leonard McCoy - Leonard H. McCoy :Lois Eckridge - Lois R. Eckridge :Miles O'Brien - Miles Edward O'Brien :Pavel Chekov - Pavel Andreievich Chekov :Rudolph Ransom - Rudolph "Rudy" Ransom :Samuel Clemens - Samuel Langhorne Clemens :Tom Paris - Thomas Eugene Paris :Walter Pierce - Walter J. Pierce :Wesley Crusher - Wesley Robert Crusher :William T. Riker - William Thomas "Will" Riker In each case, the highlighted text is the full name, while the title is the most common name. And don't move this discussion again. It is an ongoing discussion that is completely unrelated to any previous discussion. --NetSpiker (talk) 23:40, January 28, 2017 (UTC) If there are no further objections, I will be making this change for Worf, son of Mogh and other Klingon characters. --NetSpiker (talk) 12:03, March 9, 2017 (UTC) ::You will be blocked from editing if you do so. - 17:49, March 9, 2017 (UTC) If you disagree with me, why don't you explain why you disagree instead of making threats? I have already demonstrated that the highlighted text doesn't have to be the same as the title of the article. I have also demonstrated that "son of" is an actual part of a Klingon's name since it is used not just in dialogue, but also in narration. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:02, March 10, 2017 (UTC) ::It's not a threat, it's what will happen if you do this. You whined last time I didn't warn you, as if it wasn't clear, so this time I have spelled it out for you. I've already explained the why we don't do this as much as it needs to be, and I don't need your understanding, or even your acceptance of it, but I will have your compliance. I don't particularly care if you're too dense to see the points I've, and plenty of others before me, have made, or are just ignoring them, but you don't have consensus here, and making these changes over the policies, guidelines, and consensus to not do this will result in you being blocked for violating said guidelines and policies. In case it wasn't clear last time either, circumventing a block will expediently increase the length of that block. If this the hill you want to die on, it's your move. - 02:46, March 10, 2017 (UTC) You have made the point that highlighted text should be the same as the page title. I have shown you that this is incorrect. You have made no other points. There are no "plenty of others". You me and LauraCC are the only participants in this discussion. You don't get to block someone just because you disagree with them. Since you wish to continue abusing your blocking powers and have started insulting me, I will be asking that you be removed from your admin position. --NetSpiker (talk) 03:08, March 10, 2017 (UTC) ::: He said "Highlighted text is the subject of the page, and in almost all cases, this is the page title." That is different that "should be the same". --Alan del Beccio (talk) 03:17, March 10, 2017 (UTC) "Almost all cases" is still incorrect. There are many dozens of character and actor pages where the highlighted text and the title are not the same. --NetSpiker (talk) 03:24, March 10, 2017 (UTC) ::::I'd like to point out two things: ::::1) The threat to block if the change is made, that's over the top. Don't. ::::2) The examples NeSpiker gave are ALL listing a MIDDLE name. None of them have an extension of the name, so I'm personally not convinced that this is a valid highlighting suggestion. ::::Heck, we went through this a few years back when someone else was trying to make a point and the name of the article became incredibly long. And silly. Either way, I'm not entirely convinced at the highlighting change, and even if it were done, is it really all that bad? -- sulfur (talk) 10:55, March 10, 2017 (UTC) :::::I'm not convinced the change is needed, either, but by the same token, like sulfur mentioned, it's not the end of the world if the change *is* made, either. One other thing to keep in mind, though, is that the built-in SEO (search engine optimization) makes use of the bolded text in the first sentence to do its thing with indexing. This is one good, concrete reason to not have extraneous bold text. -- Renegade54 (talk) 18:15, March 10, 2017 (UTC) Thanks for unblocking me, Sulfur. There are examples where name extensions have been highlighted. :Four of Twelve - Four of Twelve, Subjunction of Unimatrix 525 :Three of Five - Three of Five, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix 01 :Lansor - designated as Two of Nine, Primary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero One :P'Chan - (Borg designation: Four of Nine, Secondary Adjunct of Unimatrix 01) :Seven of Nine - (full Borg designation: Seven of Nine, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix 01 :Norman Schwarzkopf - Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. :Stephen D'Amato - Stephen D’Amato, Jr. :Steve Gausche - Steve Gausche, Jr. -- NetSpiker (talk) 00:04, March 11, 2017 (UTC) Renegade, can you explain how highlighting a larger amount of text will affect indexing? I'm not sure what indexing means in the context of wikis. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:32, March 12, 2017 (UTC) :::::Read for an overview of the topic and process. In a nutshell, SEO is what drives external searches, such in Google, to an article in MA. The bold text in the first paragraph of an article is used by Wikimedia's and/or Wikia's automatic, built-in SEO algorithm to create properly route searches to the correct article; the more extraneous text, the less precise the search results. Too much bold text, and the SEO algorithm gives up and the article remains unoptimized. It has nothing to do with internal indexing, and is solely used by external search engine indexing. -- Renegade54 (talk) 02:58, March 12, 2017 (UTC) :::::Also, the Borg names you gave as examples probably shouldn't have the extension highlighted. I doubt few if any people would search for that whole name, or the extension part of the name. Cast and crew names are trickier; we normally have the article at the name that they're first credited as, with full name, birth name, other credited name, etc. also bolded and redirected. The Jr./Sr./whatever is added for clarity beyond what's credited. -- Renegade54 (talk) 02:58, March 12, 2017 (UTC) I tried searching for “four of twelve” and “three of five” on Google. In both cases, the Memory Alpha page was the #1 result, so the name extension doesn’t seem to be causing any problems for the search engine. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:02, March 13, 2017 (UTC) :::::That wasn't my point. Because they're bold, they get fed into the SEO algorithm. That's most likely why MA ranks #1 when searching for those terms. You could bold "sadfjalkjlte" or anything else in the first paragraph and, most likely, MA would come up #1 in the search. That doesn't mean we want to or should do that. I really don't have the time or energy to get into the rather arcane details of SEO with you, though. If you want to learn more about the topic, there are whole books written on the subject. On top of that, I don't know the exact details of how SEO works on Wikia; I did discuss it a bit with the Wikia folks in SF, and that's the limit of my knowledge. -- Renegade54 (talk) 03:37, March 13, 2017 (UTC) :Is there some kind of compromise, such as italicizing or underlining the extra text? I don't know how that works either. --LauraCC (talk) 15:15, March 13, 2017 (UTC) :Could I suggest multiple bold names, formatted like Seven of Nine? That format should work for any of the examples above. Thebilldude (talk) 16:28, March 15, 2017 (UTC) That sounds okay. I've taken a look at how Wikipedia does this sort of thing. Kahless, Gowron, Martok and Worf are the only Klingon characters to have their own pages, and in each case their full name is highlighted. --NetSpiker (talk) 05:42, March 18, 2017 (UTC) The old opener was far more interesting The old opening sentence was one of my favorite MA lines. It reminds me of his "if I can do all these things" speech in . The new one is boring, completely un-interesting. No style at all. --Bp 04:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC) :I agree, and unlike the discussion above, I am not joking. It was actually a well written opening, and I prefer it to this one. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ::Well... I wrote it, and I (obviously) like it better, but I think someone else should change it back, if so desired, since I'm biased. :) As a reply to Defiant, though, in general I agree with that rule about long, rambling sentences. This, though, is different; first of all, it's not really a sentence, per se, it's a title (or set of titles). That's why it's set off from the rest of the sentence by hyphens, and that's why it's divided into sections with semicolons. Second, it's a special case; call it artistic license, if you will. By breaking a rule, doing something unexpected, you set the article off from the rest. And third, like Bp mentioned above, it fits the Klingon personality in general, and Worf's specifically. -- Renegade54 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC) :::Sorry, I was just formatting it to MA's own guidelines - "long, rambling sentences should be avoided" (from Memory Alpha:The perfect article) - but I'm alright with reverting it, because "perfection is not required"! :) --Defiant 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC) K'Ehleyr wasn't a spouse K'Ehleyr is listed in the spouse field, which seems like an error. Just so everyone is clear, the dictionary definition of spouse is “a husband or wife, considered in relation to their partner”. Sure, they had a child together, but so did James T. Kirk and Carol Marcus, who aren’t listed as each others’ spouses. He does refer to her as his “mate” and engage in a mating ritual, which seems more analogous to being a girlfriend than a wife. Also, marriage rituals are mentioned in the episode, which clearly never took place. “You Are Cordially Invited” shows that Klingons have a very clearly defined institution of marriage. Worf himself doesn’t consider their union a marriage, he said in the same episode “Dax has had five marriages, this would be my first.”--This user is not Jesus (talk) 18:43, March 22, 2017 (UTC)